Connect with us

World News

US walks tightrope as hostage deal nears, Israel eyes southern Gaza  on November 19, 2023 at 9:00 pm

Published

on

U.S. officials are walking a delicate yet contorted tightrope when it comes to addressing Israel’s offensive in Gaza as it stares down a potential deal to release dozens of hostages from Hamas’s grip, while emphasizing “real concern” for an Israeli operation eyed in the coastal enclave’s southern tip.

Deputy national security adviser Jonathan Finer was tasked Sunday with tackling the aftermath of a report that broke late Saturday indicating that a deal was close to being reached for a five-day pause in fighting in exchange for the release of some of the 239 hostages in Gaza who were captured on Oct. 7. 

Reporting by The Washington Post indicated that a U.S.-brokered deal as a result of talks in Doha that involved Israel and Hamas via Qatari mediators would free dozens of women and children as well as allow an increase in much-needed humanitarian assistance for civilians, including fuel.

Finer, as well as U.S. Ambassador to Israel Michael Herzog, expressed hope a hostage agreement could be reached in the coming days, but they were careful to remain cautious that the deal is not yet done.

Advertisement

“[W]e are closer than we have been to reaching a final agreement, but that on an issue as sensitive as this and as challenging is this, the mantra that nothing is agreed until everything is agreed really does apply. And we do not yet have an agreement in place,” Finer told CBS’s Margaret Brennan on “Face the Nation.”

On ABC’s “This Week” with Martha Raddatz, Finer responded to a notion expressed by Qatar’s prime minister that mostly “very minor” logistical and practical issues remain before the hostages could be released.

“[S]ome of the gaps have now narrowed. Some of the issues that were at odds have now been closed out. But we are not finished — there is not yet a deal in place. And I think it would be premature to conclude that this is inevitable given how close we have come in the past,” Finer said, adding that he would not detail negotiations in public.

“They’re making some progress, and we hope that that will be concluded soon so that these people can finally come home,” he added.

Advertisement

Herzog also on ABC’s “This Week” described the status of the negotiations as “hopeful,” and he said he hoped that they could soon come to fruition. 

“We are hopeful that we can get a significant number of hostages freed in the coming days. I don’t want to go into the details of these talks. They are obviously very sensitive. The less we’re going to the details, the better the chances of such a deal. But they are very serious efforts, and I’m hopeful that we can have the deal in the coming days,” he said.

Herzog was also cautious, however, to emphasize that a brief pause did not indicate support for a cease-fire, which U.S. and Israeli officials firmly maintain would only help Hamas regroup.

“We’re talking about a pause in the fighting for a few days, so we can get the hostages out,” Herzog said. “It’s not — it’s not a cease-fire because we will continue to push against Hamas to dismantle their military infrastructure and their terror infrastructure. We are not going to stop that, but we are willing to go for a pause, for a significant number of hostages, if we have [a] deal.”

Advertisement

Simultaneously, Israel has been eyeing an offensive in Gaza’s south, where thousands of civilians have fled in recent weeks after heeding evacuation orders by Israel to do so.

Finer on CBS was asked how much the U.S. would apply any legal restrictions to military equipment it sends Israel on a “human rights basis” after Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu told the network last week that Israel was “not successful” in minimizing civilian casualties. 

The national security adviser responded with a sustained notion by the Biden administration that Israel had the right to defend itself, but he added there were concerns about where they would target next.

“In the event that we believe that Israel is likely to to embark on combat operations, including in the south, we believe both that they have the right to do that, but that there is a real concern, because hundreds of thousands of residents of Gaza have fled now from the north to the south at Israel’s request,” Finer said. “And we think that their operations should not go forward until those people — those additional civilians have been accounted for in their military planning.

Advertisement

Thomas White, the director of  the U.N. Relief and Works Agency for Palestinian Refugees, told ABC that the situation in Gaza remained “very desperate,” describing a recent report that one of its schools were hit as “horrific.”

“This is the reality of this conflict, is that people in Gaza have got nowhere to go. It’s unlike other conflicts where, you know, there’s fighting in one city and you move to another city,” White said. “You know, the reality is, the Gazans have got nowhere to go for safety. And they are all exposed to the threat of fighting, and particularly airstrikes.”

The Biden administration has come under increased pressure over the last month as the Palestinian death toll climbs to the tens of thousands, according to the Gaza Health Ministry. 

It has shifted its tone on the war since its start, at first offering unequivocal support to Israel before it began lacing its messaging with warnings to its strongest Middle East ally that it must abide by international law and do what it can to limit civilian casualties while allowing for humanitarian aid to enter.

Advertisement

But that shift hasn’t resonated with Democrats, whose support of Biden on the matter of foreign policy continues to erode, as evidenced by an NBC poll released Sunday.

That survey found just 34 percent of voters approve of how Biden is handling the Israel-Hamas war, with 51 percent of Democrats approving of Biden’s handling of the conflict.

A growing contingent of Democratic lawmakers are also increasing calls for a cease-fire, a move that neither the administration nor Israel support. Meanwhile, demonstrations by protestors who support a cease-fire have turned violent at the doorstep of Democratic Party headquarters both in Washington and California in recent days.

For his part, Biden made his most recent case on the matter in an op-ed published by The Washington Post in which he acknowledged brutal attacks by Hamas on Israelis and the deaths of thousands of civilians in Gaza while offering again the only foreign policy solution he sees fit in the region.

Advertisement

“A two-state solution — two peoples living side by side with equal measures of freedom, opportunity and dignity — is where the road to peace must lead. Reaching it will take commitments from Israelis and Palestinians, as well as from the United States and our allies and partners. That work must start now,” Biden wrote.

When asked about House and Senate Democrats who are increasingly pushing for conditions on aid in relation to what some call indiscriminate bombing, Finer said no U.S. assistance to another country was unconditional but that the situation at hand came with its own set of unique complications.

“All of the requirements associated with international humanitarian law are applicable here. The last thing I will say on this, though, and it’s important to bear in mind, is that Israel is fighting an adversary that not only does not hold itself to these same standards, it openly boasts about flouting them and about its violations, flagrant violations of international law,” Finer told CNN’s Jake Tapper on “State of the Union.”

“That does not diminish Israel’s obligations, but it is a facet of this conflict that makes the challenge extremely daunting.”

Advertisement

​ U.S. officials are walking a delicate yet contorted tightrope when it comes to addressing Israel’s offensive in Gaza as it stares down a potential deal to release dozens of hostages from Hamas’s grip, while emphasizing “real concern” for an Israeli operation eyed in the coastal enclave’s southern tip. Deputy national security adviser Jonathan Finer was… 

Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Politics

Will Kim Ju Ae Become North Korea’s First Female Leader?

Published

on

A New Face of Power in Pyongyang

In a country defined by secrecy and dynastic rule, the recent emergence of Kim Ju Ae—the daughter of North Korean leader Kim Jong Un—on the national and international stage has sparked intense speculation about the future of the world’s most isolated regime. For the first time since North Korea’s founding in 1948, the possibility of a female leader is being openly discussed, as state media and public ceremonies increasingly feature the teenage girl at her father’s side.

Official White House Photo by Shealah Craighead

Kim Ju Ae’s Rise to Prominence

Kim Ju Ae, believed to be around 12 or 13 years old, first came to the world’s attention in 2013 when former NBA star Dennis Rodman revealed he had held Kim Jong Un’s daughter during a visit to Pyongyang. However, she remained out of the public eye until November 2022, when she appeared beside her father at the launch of an intercontinental ballistic missile—a powerful symbol in North Korean propaganda.

Since then, Ju Ae has become a regular fixture at high-profile events, from military parades and weapons launches to the grand opening of a water park and the unveiling of new naval ships. Her repeated appearances are unprecedented for a member of the Kim family so young, especially a girl, and have led South Korean intelligence officials to suggest she is being groomed as her father’s successor.

The Power of Propaganda

North Korea’s state media has shifted its language regarding Ju Ae, referring to her as “beloved” and, more recently, “respected”—a term previously reserved for the nation’s highest dignitaries. Analysts believe this is part of a carefully orchestrated campaign to build her public profile and legitimize her as a future leader, signaling continuity and stability for the regime.

Presenting Ju Ae as the face of the next generation serves several purposes:

  • Demonstrating dynastic continuity: By showcasing his daughter, Kim Jong Un assures elites and the public that the Kim family’s grip on power will persist.
  • Minimizing internal threats: A young female successor is less likely to attract rival factions or pose an immediate threat to the current leadership.
  • Projecting a modern image: Her presence at both military and civilian events signals adaptability and a potential shift in North Korea’s traditionally patriarchal leadership structure.

Breaking with Tradition?

If Ju Ae is indeed being positioned as the next leader, it would mark a historic break from North Korea’s deeply patriarchal system. The country has never had a female ruler, and its military and political elite remain overwhelmingly male. However, her growing public profile and the respect shown to her by senior officials suggest that the regime is preparing the nation for the possibility of her ascension.

The only other woman with significant visibility and influence in the regime is Kim Yo Jong, Kim Jong Un’s younger sister, who has become a powerful figure in her own right, especially in matters of propaganda and foreign policy.

A Nation Divided, a Dynasty Endures

While the Kim family’s hold on North Korea appears unshakable, the country remains divided from South Korea by a heavily militarized border. Many families have been separated for generations, with little hope for reunification in the near future. As the Kim dynasty prepares its next generation for leadership, the longing for family reunions and peace persists on both sides of the border.

The Road Ahead

Kim Ju Ae’s future remains shrouded in mystery, much like the country she may one day lead. Her carefully managed public appearances, the reverence shown by state media, and her father’s apparent efforts to secure her place in the succession line all point to a regime intent on preserving its legacy while adapting to new realities. Whether North Korea is truly ready for its first female leader is uncertain, but the groundwork is clearly being laid for a new chapter in the Kim dynasty.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Business

Pros and Cons of the Big Beautiful Bill

Published

on

The “Big Beautiful Bill” (officially the One Big Beautiful Bill Act) is a sweeping tax and spending package passed in July 2025. It makes permanent many Trump-era tax cuts, introduces new tax breaks for working Americans, and enacts deep cuts to federal safety-net programs. The bill also increases spending on border security and defense, while rolling back clean energy incentives and tightening requirements for social programs.

Pros

1. Tax Relief for Middle and Working-Class Families

2. Support for Small Businesses and Economic Growth

  • Makes the small business deduction permanent, supporting Main Street businesses.
  • Expands expensing for investment in short-lived assets and domestic R&D, which is considered pro-growth.

3. Increased Spending on Security and Infrastructure

4. Simplification and Fairness in the Tax Code

  • Expands the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC) and raises marginal rates on individuals earning over $400,000.
  • Closes various deductions and loopholes, especially those benefiting private equity and multinational corporations.

Cons

1. Deep Cuts to Social Safety Net Programs

  • Cuts Medicaid by approximately $930 billion and imposes new work requirements, which could leave millions without health insurance.
  • Tightens eligibility and work requirements for SNAP (food assistance), potentially removing benefits from many low-income families.
  • Rolls back student loan forgiveness and repeals Biden-era subsidies.

2. Increases the Federal Deficit

  • The bill is projected to add $3.3–4 trillion to the federal deficit over 10 years.
  • Critics argue that the combination of tax cuts and increased spending is fiscally irresponsible.

3. Benefits Skewed Toward the Wealthy

  • The largest income gains go to affluent Americans, with top earners seeing significant after-tax increases.
  • Critics describe the bill as the largest upward transfer of wealth in recent U.S. history.

4. Rollback of Clean Energy and Climate Incentives

5. Potential Harm to Healthcare and Rural Hospitals

6. Public and Political Backlash

  • The bill is unpopular in public polls and is seen as a political risk for its supporters.
  • Critics warn it will widen the gap between rich and poor and reverse progress on alternative energy and healthcare.

Summary Table

ProsCons
Permanent middle-class tax cutsDeep Medicaid and SNAP cuts
No tax on tips/overtime for most workersMillions may lose health insurance
Doubled Child Tax CreditAdds $3.3–4T to deficit
Small business supportBenefits skewed to wealthy
Increased border/defense spendingClean energy incentives eliminated
Simplifies some tax provisionsThreatens rural hospitals
Public backlash, political risk

In summary:
The Big Beautiful Bill delivers significant tax relief and new benefits for many working and middle-class Americans, but it does so at the cost of deep cuts to social programs, a higher federal deficit, and reduced support for clean energy and healthcare. The bill is highly polarizing, with supporters touting its pro-growth and pro-family provisions, while critics warn of increased inequality and harm to vulnerable populations.

Continue Reading

Business

Trump Threatens to ‘Take a Look’ at Deporting Elon Musk Amid Explosive Feud

Published

on

The escalating conflict between President Donald Trump and Elon Musk reached a new peak this week, as Trump publicly suggested he would consider deporting the billionaire entrepreneur in response to Musk’s fierce criticism of the president’s signature tax and spending bill.

FILE PHOTO: Tesla CEO Elon Musk arrives on the red carpet for the automobile awards “Das Goldene Lenkrad” (The golden steering wheel) given by a German newspaper in Berlin, Germany, November 12, 2019. REUTERS/Hannibal Hanschke/File Photo

“I don’t know, we’ll have to take a look,” Trump told reporters on Tuesday when asked directly if he would deport Musk, who was born in South Africa but has been a U.S. citizen since 2002.

This threat followed a late-night post on Trump’s Truth Social platform, where he accused Musk of being the largest recipient of government subsidies in U.S. history. Trump claimed that without these supports, Musk “would likely have to shut down operations and return to South Africa,” and that ending such subsidies would mean “no more rocket launches, satellites, or electric vehicle production, and our nation would save a FORTUNE”.

Trump also invoked the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE)—a federal agency Musk previously led—as a potential tool to scrutinize Musk’s companies. “We might have to put DOGE on Elon. You know what DOGE is? The DOGE is the monster that might have to go back and eat Elon,” Trump remarked, further intensifying the feud.

Background to the Feud

The rupture comes after Musk’s repeated attacks on Trump’s so-called “Big, Beautiful Bill,” a comprehensive spending and tax reform proposal that Musk has labeled a “disgusting abomination” and a threat to the nation’s fiscal health. Musk, once a Trump ally who contributed heavily to his election campaign and served as a government advisor, has called for the formation of a new political party, claiming the bill exposes the need for an alternative to the current two-party system.

Advertisement

In response, Trump’s allies have amplified questions about Musk’s citizenship and immigration history, with some suggesting an investigation into his naturalization process. However, legal experts note that deporting a naturalized U.S. citizen like Musk would be extremely difficult. The only path would involve denaturalization—a rare and complex legal process requiring proof of intentional fraud during the citizenship application, a standard typically reserved for the most egregious cases.

Political Fallout

Musk’s criticism has rattled some Republican lawmakers, who fear the feud could undermine their party’s unity ahead of the 2026 midterm elections. Meanwhile, Musk has doubled down on his opposition, warning he will support primary challengers against Republicans who back Trump’s bill.

Key Points:

As the dispute continues, it has become a flashpoint in the broader debate over government spending, corporate subsidies, and political loyalty at the highest levels of American power.

Continue Reading

Trending